Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Nice to know you are reading Extradition - the Third Trial and Conviction avidly.

Nah. Someone sent me a section of it so I could have a good laugh. The one section on his imagining how the murder itself took place was just disgusting. Too disgusting to post here. But you just keep on plugging the book you helped write.

Under Italian law, the reasoning (motivation report and short-form verdict) for an acquittal must include, for each charge, one of the specifications listed in CPP Article 530. Inclusion of these specifications in acquittal judgments are not due to technical errors nor are they due to typographical errors; they are summaries of the judgment of the court.

Calling the inclusion of a specification for an acquittal in a motivation report or short-form verdict a "technical error" is indeed nonsense.

No, it is a misrepresentation and a fabrication for you to keep claiming the kids were 'found innocent'.

They were not. They were found 'not guilty' under Section 530, 2 (not 530,1), which does not include the words 'did not do it'.

Marasca does not have the jurisdiction to legally determine they 'did not do it' - under Section 530,2 -as the verdict is 'insufficient evidence' which implies 'might have done it'.

I know enough about law to know that you have to read the exact words of a piece of statute, as that is key to any case.

It is a logical absurdity to have Section 503.1 with four subsections, setting out the grounds for a standard, 'Not Guilty' verdict, which does include the words, 'for not having committed the act', or, 'the crime did not occur', followed by para 2 which has the grounds, 'insufficient evidence'.

A law or a contract is repudiated if it contradicts itself, so if you have 'insufficient evidence' you cannot at the same time contradict oneself and add, 'did not do it'.

No you don't. You also I'm afraid are totally clueless about computers.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Under Italian law, the reasoning (motivation report and short-form verdict) for an acquittal must include, for each charge, one of the specifications listed in CPP Article 530. Inclusion of these specifications in acquittal judgments are not due to technical errors nor are they due to typographical errors; they are summaries of the judgment of the court.

Calling the inclusion of a specification for an acquittal in a motivation report or short-form verdict a "technical error" is indeed nonsense.

Let's see...whom do I believe on this? You or Vixen? And the fact that the judge probably knows what the legal requirements are when it comes to writing the verdict. Um..you.

Let's see...whom do I believe on this? You or Vixen? And the fact that the judge probably knows what the legal requirements are when it comes to writing the verdict. Um..you.

Numbers is intellectually dishonest, because he once reproduced the exact wording of both paragraphs of Section 530, nos. 1 and 2 and had to admit paragraph 2 does NOT include the wording 'did not commit the act' or 'crime does not exist'.

The thing about the PIP is the lack of integrity in telling it like it is.

Numbers is intellectually dishonest, because he once reproduced the exact wording of both paragraphs of Section 530, nos. 1 and 2 and had to admit paragraph 2 does NOT include the wording 'did not commit the act' or 'crime does not exist'.

The thing about the PIP is the lack of integrity in telling it like it is.

Nah. Someone sent me a section of it so I could have a good laugh. The one section on his imagining how the murder itself took place was just disgusting. Too disgusting to post here. But you just keep on plugging the book you helped write.

Yes, it was a disgusting crime. Place the blame for the quality of 'disgusting'-ness fairly and squarely on the heads pf the perpetrators.

No you don't. You also I'm afraid are totally clueless about computers.

You keep going on how Raffaele told a cock and bull story about computer activities on the night of November 1st and the morning of November 2nd. But you simply DON'T have the knowledge to determine the level of expertise of the Postal Police analyst who said he wasn't on his computer.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Numbers is intellectually dishonest, because he once reproduced the exact wording of both paragraphs of Section 530, nos. 1 and 2 and had to admit paragraph 2 does NOT include the wording 'did not commit the act' or 'crime does not exist'.

The thing about the PIP is the lack of integrity in telling it like it is.

You're funny. And delusional.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I think Marasca knows better than Vixen when it comes to the legalities of writing a final verdict in a motivation report. He's done several of them. How many has Vixen written? What law school did she attend?

Vixen knows better than the courts when it comes to who fried the hard drives. And now she knows better than the Supreme Court judges how to write a verdict. Is there no end to her talents?

2. With reference to the second defense complaint, the Court notes that the suspect's statements are characterized by a different regime of usability subjectively. In the event that they come from the person against whom there were already indications {clues or evidence} regarding the same offense or offenses linked to or connected with the one attributed to the third, the statements can not be used against himself, nor against the co-accused of the same crime (or one accused of related to or connected crimes).

The absolutely unusable regime referred to Art. 63, second paragraph, Code of Criminal Procedure, excludes cases where the declarant is called to respond in the same or in any proceedings {trial}, for a crime or crimes attributed to third parties, which have no connection with the trial for the case, for which he takes the status of witness.

In fact, while in the first case, by virtue of the intimate connection and interdependence between the fact itself and that of others is the need to also protect the right to silence of the declarant, in the second case, however, the extraneousness {or strange} position and indifference {or apathy} of the declarant with respect to the facts in the declaration makes it immune from any possible exploitation by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sec. A. 13 February 1997, Carpenelli).

In the light of those precepts, the statements made by Amanda Marie Knox at 1.45 on 6 November 2007, resulted in the minutes being suspended, and she was placed at the disposal of' the judicial Authority {prosecutor} proceeding, since {the statements included} evidence that had emerged against her, and therefore are usable only contra alios {against others}, while the "spontaneous declarations" of 5.45 hours can not be used against the suspect nor against other people accused of complicity in the same crime, as there were no defensive guarantees given to the person who had already formally assumed the role of a suspect.

On the contrary, the memorial in English from Knox and translated into Italian is fully usable, according to Art. 237 Code of Criminal Procedure, since it is a document coming from the investigated (suspect), and it is spontaneously written defensive material. The provision in question allows the attribution of evidential significance to the document not only as such, and for its representative content, but also by virtue of the special bond that ties it to the suspect (or accused), so heightening the scrutiny of admissibility that the judge is required to perform.
_____
It appears that Amanda's coerced statements against Lumumba from the interrogation can be used against her only because she wrote Memoriale 1, a defensive document, with no lawyer, on November 6 soon after the interrogation, according to the Gemelli CSC panel MR. This will, of course, be of interest to the ECHR.

No, it is a misrepresentation and a fabrication for you to keep claiming the kids were 'found innocent'.

They were not. They were found 'not guilty' under Section 530, 2 (not 530,1), which does not include the words 'did not do it'.

Marasca does not have the jurisdiction to legally determine they 'did not do it' - under Section 530,2 -as the verdict is 'insufficient evidence' which implies 'might have done it'.

Clearly "found innocent" is shorthand for "found innocent of the charges brought against them in court." Which is self evident, since in this context the language is a binary condition meaning the legal status one has when one is not guilty. Nobody is suggesting they were given a certificate of moral innocence by a philosopher king

Your flip-out over paragraph 2 isn't relevant or interesting, unless you think only secretly guilty people are acquitted under paragraph 2 and never actually innocent people, which is obviously both wrong and stupid.

I strongly believe that the ECHR will judge Knox v. Italy in Amanda's favor on the basis of ECHR case law on an unfair trial consisting of a conviction based on statements obtained from a suspect during an an interrogation without a lawyer, including the denial of a lawyer during initial custody - when Amanda wrote Memoriale 1. I also believe that the ECHR will judge in her favor on her other claims of violations of her defense rights by Italy.

Here is some of the most relevant ECHR case law:

Deweer v. Belgium 6903/75 27/02/1980

44. ...[T]he prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial prompts the Court to prefer a "substantive", rather than a "formal", conception of the "charge" contemplated by Article 6.1. The Court is compelled to look behind the appearances and investigate the realities of the procedure in question.

46. .... The "charge" could, for the purposes of Article 6.1, be defined as the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence. [However, as appropriate, the Court uses] a test that appears to be fairly closely related, namely whether "the situation of the [suspect] has been substantially affected"....

Brusco v. France 1466/07 14/10/2010 (Judgment text available only in French; the following excerpts are from the press release)

Decision of the CourtThe Court began by stressing the importance of the right to remain silent and the right not to incriminate oneself, which are generally accepted international legal principles at the heart of the notion of a fair trial.

It then noted that when Mr Brusco had been made to swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” [as a witness], he had been in police custody (at the time it was possible to place an individual in police custody even without “substantial, consistent evidence” or “reasonable suspicion” that he or she had committed an offence). However, at the time when Mr Brusco was questioned in police custody one of the presumed aggressors had already identified him as the mastermind behind the attack, and the victim had lodged a complaint against him. The authorities had therefore had reason to suspect him of being involved in the offence. Accordingly, in the Court’s opinion the argument that Mr Brusco had merely been a witness – which was why he had been asked to take an oath – was purely formalistic and therefore unconvincing. In actual fact, when Mr Brusco had been taken into custody and made to swear an oath, “criminal charges” had been brought against him and he should therefore have had the right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, as guaranteed by Articles 6.1 and 6.3 of the Convention.

Mr Brusco was convicted on the basis of the statements he had made under oath. The Court found that the fact that he was made to take an oath before answering the questions of the police amounted to a form of pressure on the applicant (who had been in police custody since the previous day), and that the threat of criminal proceedings should he be found to have committed perjury must have placed him under even greater pressure. ….

Furthermore, Mr Brusco had not been informed at the start of the interview that he had the right to remain silent, not to answer any questions or to answer only those questions he wished to answer. In addition, he had been allowed the assistance of a lawyer only after 20 hours in police custody [and indeed had no lawyer when he was questioned seemingly as a witness but in reality as a suspect] .... His lawyer had thus been unable to inform him, before he was questioned, of his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, or to assist him when he was questioned on that and subsequent occasions, as required under Article 6.

The result had been an infringement of Mr Brusco’s right[s] to remain silent and not to incriminate himself, in violation of Article[s] 6.1 and 6.3.

....The Court was also satisfied that the proceedings as a whole in respect of each of the first three applicants had been fair. The position with regard to the fourth applicant, who also complained about the delay in access to a lawyer, was different. He was initially interviewed as a witness, and therefore without legal advice. However, it emerged during questioning that he had assisted a fourth bomber following the failed attack. At that point, according to the applicable code of practice, he should have been cautioned and offered legal advice. However, this was not done. After he had made a written witness statement, he was arrested, charged with, and subsequently convicted of, assisting the fourth bomber and failing to disclose information after the attacks. In his case, the Court was not convinced that there had been compelling reasons for restricting his access to legal advice and for failing to inform him of his right to remain silent. It was significant that there was no basis in domestic law for the police to choose not to caution him at the point at which he had started to incriminate himself. The consequence was that he had been misled as to his procedural rights. Further, the police decision could not subsequently be reviewed as it had not been recorded and no evidence had been heard as to the reasons behind it. As there were no compelling reasons, it fell to the UK Government to show that the proceedings were nonetheless fair. In the Court’s view they were unable to do this and it accordingly concluded that the overall fairness of the fourth applicant’s trial had been prejudiced by the decision not to caution him and to restrict his access to legal advice. [The Court found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3c with respect to the fourth applicant, but no violation with respect to the first three applicants.]

Salduz v. Turkey [GC] 36391/02 27/11/2008

54. ...[T]he Court underlines the importance of the investigation stage for the preparation of the criminal proceedings, as the evidence obtained during this stage determines the framework in which the offence charged will be considered at the trial... At the same time, an accused often finds himself in a particularly vulnerable position at that stage of the proceedings, the effect of which is amplified by the fact that legislation on criminal procedure tends to become increasingly complex, notably with respect to the rules governing the gathering and use of evidence. In most cases, this particular vulnerability can only be properly compensated for by the assistance of a lawyer whose task it is, among other things, to help to ensure respect of the right of an accused not to incriminate himself. This right indeed presupposes that the prosecution in a criminal case seek to prove their case against the accused without resort to evidence obtained through methods of coercion or oppression in defiance of the will of the accused ….

55. ...[T]he Court finds that in order for the right to a fair trial to remain sufficiently “practical and effective”, Article 6.1 requires that, as a rule, access to a lawyer should be provided as from the first interrogation of a suspect by the police, unless it is demonstrated in the light of the particular circumstances of each case that there are compelling reasons to restrict this right. Even where compelling reasons may exceptionally justify denial of access to a lawyer, such restriction – whatever its justification – must not unduly prejudice the rights of the accused under Article 6 …. The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction. [The Court found a violation of Articles 6.1 and 6.3c.]

Dayanan v. Turkey 7377/03 13/10/2009

31. The Court is of the view that the fairness of criminal proceedings under Article 6 of the Convention requires that, as a rule, a suspect should be granted access to legal assistance from the moment he is taken into police custody or pre-trial detention.

32. In accordance with the generally recognised international norms, which the Court accepts and which form the framework for its case-law, an accused person is entitled, as soon as he or she is taken into custody, to be assisted by a lawyer, and not only while being questioned.... Indeed, the fairness of proceedings requires that an accused be able to obtain the whole range of services specifically associated with legal assistance. In this regard, counsel has to be able to secure without restriction the fundamental aspects of that person’s defence: discussion of the case, organisation of the defence, collection of evidence favourable to the accused, preparation for questioning, support of an accused in distress and checking of the conditions of detention.

Marasca-Bruno write a scathing indictment of both the police which charged them as well as the courts which convicted them.....

All except for the typos.

All except for ignoring words in the motivation report.

All except for being bought off by US media interests and the Masons.

What the PGP is suffering from is a serious case of denial. How else do you explain Vixen's posts about Amanda being at the cottage? The words 'even if' mean absolutely nothing to her and she always omits them.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

What the PGP is suffering from is a serious case of denial. How else do you explain Vixen's posts about Amanda being at the cottage? The words 'even if' mean absolutely nothing to her and she always omits them.

I forgot one. When the Channel 5 (?) people got a young man to climb up to Filomena's window, saying it was easy to do, the nutters claimed that Channel 5 (?) had purposely edited the sequence.

Nothing is as it seems. An easy climb is a clever editing. An exoneration by Cassazione is merely a, "We wanted to convict them but were short one piece of evidence to do so." An exquisite proof that Knox had wiped blood from her hands is met with Judge Massei back in 2010 actually admitting that he'd come to that assertion without evidence!

Of course the nutters don't put forth any evidence that their claims are true. They just assert them.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

I forgot one. When the Channel 5 (?) people got a young man to climb up to Filomena's window, saying it was easy to do, the nutters claimed that Channel 5 (?) had purposely edited the sequence.

Nothing is as it seems. An easy climb is a clever editing. An exoneration by Cassazione is merely a, "We wanted to convict them but were short one piece of evidence to do so." An exquisite proof that Knox had wiped blood from her hands is met with Judge Massei back in 2010 actually admitting that he'd come to that assertion without evidence!

Of course the nutters don't put forth any evidence that their claims are true. They just assert them.

I remember well when they made it out that little climb was so very hard to do. Didn't Vixen insist there wasn't a grate over the lower windows and to prove it posted a picture of a grate over the lower window?

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I found this on an Italian website about the law regarding 530 para.2. This clearly states that, despite PGP claims, 530,2 has no varying degrees of innocence and that "for not having committed the act" in the MR is a "technical error".

There is no interest of the defendant to lodge an appeal against the judgment of absolution because the fact does not exist, pronounced by art. 530, paragraph 2, cpp - because of the lack, insufficiency or contradiction of the test - as this wording does not involve a lesser degree of absolute pronunciation nor indicates any perplexity about the innocence of the accused, nor does it explain less validity with reference to civil judgments, as proven from the literal tenor of art. 652 and 654 cpp; therefore, it can not in any way be equated with the absolution due to insufficient evidence provided by the former rite code. (Declares Ineligible, Giud.pace Rovereto, 19/04/2013)

Qualification is legitimate as defensive memory ex art. 121, paragraph 1, cpp of the incidental appeal declared inadmissible that was proposed by the defendants who had already been served at first instance for not having committed the case, pursuant to art. 530, paragraph 2, cpp, in order to obtain the acquittal under paragraph 1 of the same article. (Cancel with Referral, Ass.App Brescia, January 18, 2013)

I remember well when they made it out that little climb was so very hard to do. Didn't Vixen insist there wasn't a grate over the lower windows and to prove it posted a picture of a grate over the lower window?

As myself and Bill Williams have repeatedly asked, if the case against Amanda and Raffaele is such a slam dunk and there was a mountain of evidence against them, why do PGP have to resort to blatant lies such as the window beneath Filomena's room not having bars when clearly it did have bars and Vixen has the cheek to bang on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies.

As myself and Bill Williams have repeatedly asked, if the case against Amanda and Raffaele is such a slam dunk and there was a mountain of evidence against them, why do PGP have to resort to blatant lies ......

That's more your schtick, dude, than mine. You keep better lists of the lies told by PGP to make their case.

I'm taken with the other things... generic statements like, "Perugian Police are highly trained, with no need to fudge evidence," or "Public Ministers take an oath to uphold the truth and would have no reason to go after an American...." that sort of thing. Or, "highly trained DNA-analysts like Stefanoni haven't time to write peer-reviewed papers, so their work should be seen to be above reproach."

People have a hard time believing that police and prosecutors can simply fumble a case - deliberately or otherwise.

This case becomes more of a classic wrongful conviction the more you look at it. It begins with the hardest thing to understand - and despite that counter-intuitiveness, the most common of things: a false confession.

Either coerced or otherwise - that's the hardest thing for most of us to "get". PGP just start from the confession, false or otherwise, and bull ahead from there.

And this is before considering that in "naming Lumumba", this probably was not a confession at all - like all false confessions, what was written in the early hours of Nov 6 2007 described nothing to do with the crime as it went to trial.

__________________In a thread titled "Who Killed Meredith Kercher?", the answer is obvious. Rudy Guede and no one else.

That's more your schtick, dude, than mine. You keep better lists of the lies told by PGP to make their case.

I'm taken with the other things... generic statements like, "Perugian Police are highly trained, with no need to fudge evidence," or "Public Ministers take an oath to uphold the truth and would have no reason to go after an American...." that sort of thing. Or, "highly trained DNA-analysts like Stefanoni haven't time to write peer-reviewed papers, so their work should be seen to be above reproach."

People have a hard time believing that police and prosecutors can simply fumble a case - deliberately or otherwise.

This case becomes more of a classic wrongful conviction the more you look at it. It begins with the hardest thing to understand - and despite that counter-intuitiveness, the most common of things: a false confession.

Either coerced or otherwise - that's the hardest thing for most of us to "get". PGP just start from the confession, false or otherwise, and bull ahead from there.

And this is before considering that in "naming Lumumba", this probably was not a confession at all - like all false confessions, what was written in the early hours of Nov 6 2007 described nothing to do with the crime as it went to trial.

Except it wasn't really a false confession. Patrick Lumumba wasn't involved and there was no confidence written into the statement.

Also, Welshman has a point. If the case is so strong why don't they present the facts instead of twisting every point or making things up out of thin air?

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

That's more your schtick, dude, than mine. You keep better lists of the lies told by PGP to make their case.

I'm taken with the other things... generic statements like, "Perugian Police are highly trained, with no need to fudge evidence," or "Public Ministers take an oath to uphold the truth and would have no reason to go after an American...." that sort of thing. Or, "highly trained DNA-analysts like Stefanoni haven't time to write peer-reviewed papers, so their work should be seen to be above reproach."

People have a hard time believing that police and prosecutors can simply fumble a case - deliberately or otherwise.

This case becomes more of a classic wrongful conviction the more you look at it. It begins with the hardest thing to understand - and despite that counter-intuitiveness, the most common of things: a false confession.

Either coerced or otherwise - that's the hardest thing for most of us to "get". PGP just start from the confession, false or otherwise, and bull ahead from there.

And this is before considering that in "naming Lumumba", this probably was not a confession at all - like all false confessions, what was written in the early hours of Nov 6 2007 described nothing to do with the crime as it went to trial.

Vixen takes the view police/prosecutors can do no wrong. The police are never incompetent, corruption never happens and innocent people are never railroaded. According to Vixen police/prosecutors have no interest in railroading innocent people. Police only arrest and detain people if they have a slam dunk case. Anyone who believes this is incredibly naive.

Except it wasn't really a false confession. Patrick Lumumba wasn't involved and there was no confidence written into the statement.

Also, Welshman has a point. If the case is so strong why don't they present the facts instead of twisting every point or making things up out of thin air?

Amanda's statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogation were treated by Public Minister Mignini as though it were a confession; he included it as the major element in the "reasoning" allegedly showing "reasonable suspicion" in the arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

Furthermore, the Gemelli CSC panel, in their April, 2008 judgment, stated that Amanda became a suspect when she uttered the first statement (written document attributed to 1:45 am on Nov. 6, 2007) claiming that she had accompanied Patrick Lumumba to the cottage and that she "confusedly" remembers that he killed Meredith Kercher.

She had not reported that information to the police in any of her previous witness statements (police documents of Nov. 2, 3, and 4), cast extreme doubt on the validity of her signed interrogation statements in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6 (written in English after the interrogation) and denied them fully in her Memoriale 2 of Nov. 7.

Without her interrogation statements, Mignini would probably not have had the minimal evidence to convince an arrest hearing magistrate that there was "reasonable suspicion" to justify the arrests of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

Amanda's statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogation were treated by Public Minister Mignini as though it were a confession; he included it as the major element in the "reasoning" allegedly showing "reasonable suspicion" in the arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

Furthermore, the Gemelli CSC panel, in their April, 2008 judgment, stated that Amanda became a suspect when she uttered the first statement (written document attributed to 1:45 am on Nov. 6, 2007) claiming that she had accompanied Patrick Lumumba to the cottage and that she "confusedly" remembers that he killed Meredith Kercher.

She had not reported that information to the police in any of her previous witness statements (police documents of Nov. 2, 3, and 4), cast extreme doubt on the validity of her signed interrogation statements in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6 (written in English after the interrogation) and denied them fully in her Memoriale 2 of Nov. 7.

Without her interrogation statements, Mignini would probably not have had the minimal evidence to convince an arrest hearing magistrate that there was "reasonable suspicion" to justify the arrests of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

On that basis, it was equivalent to a false confession.

One may view it that way, but it is intellectually dishonest. I see how it was used as a reason for the arrest but it is not a false confession. False statement yes, but certainly not a false confession.

The moment that Patrick Lumumba was eliminated the rationale for holding Amanda and Raffaele disappeared.and they very well may have released them if the Keystone cops didn't screw up the shoeprints.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Amanda's statements from the Nov. 5/6 interrogation were treated by Public Minister Mignini as though it were a confession; he included it as the major element in the "reasoning" allegedly showing "reasonable suspicion" in the arrest warrant for Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

Furthermore, the Gemelli CSC panel, in their April, 2008 judgment, stated that Amanda became a suspect when she uttered the first statement (written document attributed to 1:45 am on Nov. 6, 2007) claiming that she had accompanied Patrick Lumumba to the cottage and that she "confusedly" remembers that he killed Meredith Kercher.

She had not reported that information to the police in any of her previous witness statements (police documents of Nov. 2, 3, and 4), cast extreme doubt on the validity of her signed interrogation statements in her Memoriale 1 of Nov. 6 (written in English after the interrogation) and denied them fully in her Memoriale 2 of Nov. 7.

Without her interrogation statements, Mignini would probably not have had the minimal evidence to convince an arrest hearing magistrate that there was "reasonable suspicion" to justify the arrests of Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba.

On that basis, it was equivalent to a false confession.

She confessed to (a) taking 'Patrick (= read, Rudy) to the cottage to impose him on Mez, whereupon he went to her room for sex and Knox heard a harrowing scream, and (b) that she was present at the crime scene during the murder.

She arrived at the Questura at about 10:30, as a 'person informed of the facts' and confessed by about 12:30, as soon as Raff withdrew his alibi for her. It was after she confessed, she became a formal suspect.

Except it wasn't really a false confession. Patrick Lumumba wasn't involved and there was no confidence written into the statement.

Also, Welshman has a point. If the case is so strong why don't they present the facts instead of twisting every point or making things up out of thin air?

The problem for anyone who comes on an internet forum and lies to argue is that lies can easily be disproved because records are available. For instance, Vixen said the defence were in full agreement there was a full profile of Meredith on the knife. This can be proved to be a falsehood because there is no record of the defence agreeing and if you examine documents by the defence they question the validity of the DNA which makes the claim defence agreed there was a full profile a blatant falsehood. If you lie on an internet forum you will end up being humiliated if it is proved you have lied. In view of this you must be pretty desperate to have to resort to lying to argue your case. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and PGP have plenty of genuine evidence to base their arguments on, why risk embarrassing themselves with lies which can easily be disproved?

She confessed to (a) taking 'Patrick (= read, Rudy) to the cottage to impose him on Mez, whereupon he went to her room for sex and Knox heard a harrowing scream, and (b) that she was present at the crime scene during the murder.

She arrived at the Questura at about 10:30, as a 'person informed of the facts' and confessed by about 12:30, as soon as Raff withdrew his alibi for her. It was after she confessed, she became a formal suspect.

Only a moron incapable of critical thought replaces Rudy with Patrick. Amanda doesn't really know Rudy. Rudy didn't text Amanda that night or any night or at any time. Amanda didn't text 'see you later'to Rudy that evening or any evening.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

The problem for anyone who comes on an internet forum and lies to argue is that lies can easily be disproved because records are available. For instance, Vixen said the defence were in full agreement there was a full profile of Meredith on the knife. This can be proved to be a falsehood because there is no record of the defence agreeing and if you examine documents by the defence they question the validity of the DNA which makes the claim defence agreed there was a full profile a blatant falsehood. If you lie on an internet forum you will end up being humiliated if it is proved you have lied. In view of this you must be pretty desperate to have to resort to lying to argue your case. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk and PGP have plenty of genuine evidence to base their arguments on, why risk embarrassing themselves with lies which can easily be disproved?

I am not familiar with the legal term, 'slam dunk'.

Perhaps it involves the prosecution racing across the court bouncing their basketball and scoring, although I have never witnessed such a phenomenon.

I would guess whoever had the tallest counsel will win that case, or at least have the edge.

Perhaps Welshman is referring to USA versus Russia in the Olympics keeping everybody up until the early hours.

Only a moron incapable of critical thought replaces Rudy with Patrick. Amanda doesn't really know Rudy. Rudy didn't text Amanda that night or any night or at any time. Amanda didn't text 'see you later'to Rudy that evening or any evening.

One may view it that way, but it is intellectually dishonest. I see how it was used as a reason for the arrest but it is not a false confession. False statement yes, but certainly not a false confession.

The moment that Patrick Lumumba was eliminated the rationale for holding Amanda and Raffaele disappeared.and they very well may have released them if the Keystone cops didn't screw up the shoeprints.

I absolutely agree that Amanda's interrogation statements are better described as "false statements" rather than as a "false confession". And these statements were obtained contrary to Italian law, and it is clear that Amanda's defense rights under the Italian Constitution and the European Convention were violated during the interrogation and by the use of her false statements to arrest her, Sollecito, and Lumumba and to convict her of calunnia.

The Italian police and Mignini should have known from the results of DNA testing available as early as Nov. 8 that neither Patrick Lumumba nor Raffaele Sollecito had raped Meredith Kercher but that another male had. Thus, they knew Amanda Knox's false statements, coerced by the police in violation of CPP Article 188 and other Italian laws, were indeed false. But Mignini went ahead with his nonsensical prosecution of Knox and Sollecito despite that knowledge.

As far as the Italian authorities were concerned, there was no practical difference between a false statement and a false confession that was known by them to have been coerced by the police in violation of Italian law.

I absolutely agree that Amanda's interrogation statements are better described as "false statements" rather than as a "false confession". And these statements were obtained contrary to Italian law, and it is clear that Amanda's defense rights under the Italian Constitution and the European Convention were violated during the interrogation and by the use of her false statements to arrest her, Sollecito, and Lumumba and to convict her of calunnia.

The Italian police and Mignini should have known from the results of DNA testing available as early as Nov. 8 that neither Patrick Lumumba nor Raffaele Sollecito had raped Meredith Kercher but that another male had. Thus, they knew Amanda Knox's false statements, coerced by the police in violation of CPP Article 188 and other Italian laws, were indeed false. But Mignini went ahead with his nonsensical prosecution of Knox and Sollecito despite that knowledge.

As far as the Italian authorities were concerned, there was no practical difference between a false statement and a false confession that was known by them to have been coerced by the police in violation of Italian law.

I get the police continuing to hold Amanda and Raffaele at that time nevertheless if they think Raffaele's shoes are a match. That they were incompetent beyond belief is not something you would expect.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Oh give me a break. Both of THOSE statements are ridiculous and you don't have a shred of evidence that Amanda said more than 'hello and can I take your drink order' to Rudy.

Rudy isn't a god. You can't just assert things in court, you have to provide evidence and like your God, you have none.

And what good has communism done for the world, eh?

Christianity introduced literacy for the masses and a common grammar in Germany (Luther), one in Britain (Tyndale) and one in Finland (Agricola). Before the Reformation, everybody was Catholic and only the learned who knew Latin had a clue what was going on in the world.

It was the Christians who founded universities and modern civilisation as we know it.

We know Knox conceals her relationship with Rudy because in her book she makes out that the time the boys downstairs invited Rudy back to the cottage was the first time she met him, which is a lie.

In any case, it is a legal fact that it was Amanda who let Rudy in to the cottage on the murder night.

Christianity introduced literacy for the masses and a common grammar in Germany (Luther), one in Britain (Tyndale) and one in Finland (Agricola). Before the Reformation, everybody was Catholic and only the learned who knew Latin had a clue what was going on in the world.

It was the Christians who founded universities and modern civilisation as we know it.

Nonsense, the Chinese and Japanese were literate. Not sure what communism has to do with anything. That Guttenberg first used his printing press for the Bible is incidental. Christianity also introduced the world to the crusades and the inquisition. It endorsed slavery and racism and sexism among other things. But how incredibly immoral the religion is has nothing to do with the fact that there isn't a shred of credible evidence that the Christian God is any more real then the Muslim God or the Hindu, Sikh, Norse gods or Egyptian or Roman or Greek...although I have been referred to as a Greek God once or twice. (I think they were just being nice).
THE POINT IS EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED. You don't have any for God or in this case.

Originally Posted by Vixen

We know Knox conceals her relationship with Rudy because in her book she makes out that the time the boys downstairs invited Rudy back to the cottage was the first time she met him, which is a lie.

In any case, it is a legal fact that it was Amanda who let Rudy in to the cottage on the murder night.

Being acquainted doesn't mean more than that. I'm acquainted with the clerk at the bank, but I don't know her. What's a lie is your contention that It wasn't the first time she met him. You need evidence and you have none that is credible.

__________________“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

I wish an omniscient being revealed itself to me so it could point out something really stupid I believe because of emotional/ideological cognitive bias that I wasn't aware of, so I could have my mind blown and feel what it's like to be a guilter that thinks a simple break-in gone bad investigated by some dufuses is some elaborate multi-actor mafia conspiracy or w/e.

edit: i mean maybe it's this case but i doubt it seeing as the only people who believe in guilt beyond any standard of reasonable doubt are tabloid idiots, a few Italians working in the system that perpetrated the mess, a couple zealous PGP obsessives, and that's about it iirc.